In two top bilge topics this morning Global Warming and Gay Marriage I noticed something weird.

In the Gay Marriage thread all the anti gay marriage posters take great pains to post chapter and verse from the bible to support their case. They have a fervent belief that the bible has all the answers. Yet in regards to our stewardship to this miraculous earth that we live and worship on, there is almost no mention of the spiritual responsibility to protect and save the environment for future generations. No bible quotes about how it is mans responsibly to look after and care for Gods amazing creation. this planet.

When we knowingly harm the environment we are in direct opposition to the Bibles description of how we should treat the planet.

Joshua 2:11. For the lord your God is God in heaven above and on earth below.

Psalms 104:24. How many are your works, O Lord! In wisdom have you made them all; the earth is full of your creatures. There is the sea, vast and spacious, teeming with creatures beyond number - living things both large and small.

Nehemiah 9:6. You made the heavens, even the highest heavens and all their starry host, the earth and all that is on it, the seas and all that is in them. You gave life to everything and the multitudes of heaven worship you.

Rev 5:13. Then I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all that is in them, singing "To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb, be praise and honor and glory and power for ever and ever."

God Expects Humans to be His Stewards with Nature

Lev. 25:23-24. The land is mine and you are but aliens and my tenants. Throughout the country that you hold as a possession, you must provide for the redemption of the land.

Ezekiel 34:2-4. Woe to the shepherds of Israel who only take care of themselves! Should not the shepherds take care of the flock? You eat the curds, clothe yourselves with the wool and slaughter the choice animals, but you did not take care of the flock! You have not strengthened the weak or healed the sick or bound up the injured. You have not brought back the strays or searched for the lost. You have ruled them harshly and brutally.

Ezekiel 34:10. 0 shepherds, hear the word of the Lord. This is what the sovereign Lord says: I am against the shepherds and will hold them accountable for my flock.

Ezekiel 34:17-18. As for you, my flock... Is it not enough for you to feed on good pasture? Must you also trample the rest of your pasture with your feet? Is it not enough for you to drink clear water? Must you also muddy the rest with your feet?

Isaiah 24:4-6. The earth dries up and withers, the world languished and withers, the exalted of the earth languish. The earth lies under its inhabitants; for they have transgressed the laws, violated the statutes, and broken the everlasting covenant. Therefore a curse consumes the earth; its people must bear their guilt.

Jer. 2:7. I brought you into a fertile land to eat its fruit and rich produce. But you came and defiled my land and you made my inheritance detestable.

Luke 16:2,10,13. And he called him and said to him, "What is this I hear about you? Give an account of your stewardship, for you can no longer be steward. He who is faithful in a very little thing is faithful also in much; and he who is unrighteous in a very little thing is unrighteous in much. You cannot serve both God and mammon.

James 5:5. You have lived luxuriously on the earth and led a life of wanton pleasure; you have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter.

Mark 4:19. ...and the worries of the world, and the deceitfulness of riches and the desires for other things enter in and choke the word and it becomes unfruitful.

Revelation 11:18. The nations were angry and your wrath has come. The time has come for rewarding your servants the prophets and your saints and those who reverence your name, both small and great - and for destroying those who destroy the earth.

Milo Christensen

06-06-2006, 06:11 AM

Well, Joe, what can I say? If you're not part of an active Christian community that takes Stewardship seriously, then you wouldn't be aware of what's going on in the Environmental Stewardship movements across the country. Didn't you say you were an Episcopalian at one time? Why don't you check out what your church has to say on the issue? I think you would be pleased to see what we're doing in this area. Evangelical Christians also have numerous movements in Environmental Stewardship.

Joe (SoCal)

06-06-2006, 06:27 AM

I was Catholic at one time. ;)
I'm currently Anglican (Episcopalian)

I don't need a movement to be conscience of protecting the environment and my responsibility to God and earth. I do however find it odd that in both top topics Gay Marriage and Global Warming on the WBF one side uses SCIENCE and the other uses Bible quotes.

I think God

#1 wants us to be happy, hence he doesn't mind gay people loving each-other, he made them gay ( as some science has proven )

#2 he wants us to protect the environment, he did teach us in the above passages quoted from the bible. There is also significant scientific evidence to SUPPORT the bibles teachings. It's man's interpretations that have muddied the waters.

I can see a benevolent God who loves and teaches us to love each-other as we would want to be loved. Who teaches us to respect and care for the world he has created. Seems pretty simple to me.

President Bush claims to be part of an active Christian community and I can see what he has done with his Environmental Stewardship and people loving and showing that love for one another. :( Oil & War - where is that in the good book ?

Again like I said I find it odd that Evangelical Christians use bible quotes to fight Gay marriage but I don't hear them putting the environment on the front burner. They would much rather burn homosexuals at the stake, or so it seems on the WBF.

Popeye

06-06-2006, 06:49 AM

good point you raise , i have noticed posters who take their families and their own personal health and well being to heart are also likely to be environmentally conscientious , or at least they should be making the connection between the two

Leon m

06-06-2006, 07:07 AM

Good job Joe !

Lev. 25:23-24. The land is mine and you are but aliens and my tenants. Throughout the country that you hold as a possession, you must provide for the redemption of the land.

Leon m

06-06-2006, 07:13 AM

Its always been my balief that God set up a law of nature (a law of balance), and if we stepped out of that balance ...God didn't punish us,we punished our selves... with our contempt for nature.In other words..."You reap what you sow".

Revelation 11:18. The nations were angry and your wrath has come. The time has come for rewarding your servants the prophets and your saints and those who reverence your name, both small and great - and for destroying those who destroy the earth.

Alan D. Hyde

06-06-2006, 09:25 AM

Verse 16

"The LORD has made himself known, he has executed judgment;
the wicked are snared in the work of their own hands."

And so they are, eventually...

Alan

ljb5

06-06-2006, 09:44 AM

If you're not part of an active Christian community that takes Stewardship seriously, then you wouldn't be aware of what's going on in the Environmental Stewardship movements across the country.

Let me get this straight....

All the "good Christians" on this forum hate environmentalism and don't feel an obligation to protect the planet....

...but, outside of the forum, they're involved in Stewardship Movements?

They're leading a double life in secret?

TomF

06-06-2006, 09:57 AM

About 20 years ago, my wife worked for a summer developing an environmental action toolkit for the United Church. There's been lots of theological reflection on environmental stewardship, and a bunch of biblical exegesis that grounds it.

Joe, you've listed a fair number of the standard texts ... folks have also used the Noah story, and Deuteronomy 30, and of course the creation stories in Genesis.

BrianW

06-06-2006, 12:18 PM

In two top bilge topics this morning Global Warming and Gay Marriage I noticed something weird.

In the Gay Marriage thread all the anti gay marriage posters take great pains to post chapter and verse from the bible to support their case.

Not true there big Joe.

If you review it, Rick made a reference to a Genesis verse, and Paul Girouardmade reference to a Phillipians verse, that's about the extent of it from that side. And, given your ignoring Rick, I know you didn't read that from him.

It was ljb5 who posted the most Bible references.

What's odd Joe, is that you made that up to start another debate, and some folks followed you without even looking it up.

Leon m

06-06-2006, 12:29 PM

Hey now, lets not discourage him ...I like this "Environmental Joe". :D

BrianW

06-06-2006, 12:32 PM

Hey now, lets not discourage him ...I like this "Environmental Joe". :D

I like Joe too, but he ain't perfect. :)

Rick Clark

06-06-2006, 12:36 PM

Verse 16

"The LORD has made himself known, he has executed judgment;
the wicked are snared in the work of their own hands."

And so they are, eventually...

Alan

GE 3:17 To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, `You must not eat of it,'
"Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat of it
all the days of your life.

GE 3:18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field.

GE 3:19 By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return."

Tar Devil

06-06-2006, 12:36 PM

Once again, the same select few are tossing all of us "Christians" into your chosen dungpile of the day.

And somehow you feel better about yourselves? A little less hyocritical? Less judgemental?

Sam F

06-06-2006, 12:39 PM

...I think God

#1 wants us to be happy, hence he doesn't mind gay people loving each-other, he made them gay ( as some science has proven )

#2 he wants us to protect the environment, he did teach us in the above passages quoted from the bible. There is also significant scientific evidence to SUPPORT the bibles teachings. It's man's interpretations that have muddied the waters...

Again like I said I find it odd that Evangelical Christians use bible quotes to fight Gay marriage but I don't hear them putting the environment on the front burner. They would much rather burn homosexuals at the stake, or so it seems on the WBF.

Joe you are doing exactly what you accuse the Evangelicals of doing: Quoting scripture to support one position and ignoring it when it contradicts your preference. Isn't that muddying the waters?
Selectively ignoring scripture doesn't exactly build credibility.
Why not try taking scripture seriously, even when it contradicts your ideological position?

troutman

06-06-2006, 12:44 PM

I'll bet the folks who quote the passages on marriage also know the ones about not mixing the races. Funny how they never take the one about giving all you have to the poor and come follow me too seriously. America is all about money and Jesus rode into town on a borrowed mule owning only the clothes he stood up in. Hold the bible and the Koran please.

ljb5

06-06-2006, 12:51 PM

It was ljb5 who posted the most Bible references.

True -- but I took those bible references directly from a sign that was being held by an anti-gay marriage protestor.

Popeye

06-06-2006, 12:52 PM

O Lord, ooh you are so big, so absolutely huge. Gosh we're all really impressed down here, I can tell you. Forgive us, O Lord, for this our dreadful toadying and barefaced flattery. But you are so strong and, well, just so super--fantastic. Amen.

Milo Christensen

06-06-2006, 12:53 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Milo Christensen
If you're not part of an active Christian community that takes Stewardship seriously, then you wouldn't be aware of what's going on in the Environmental Stewardship movements across the country.

Let me get this straight....

All the "good Christians" on this forum hate environmentalism and don't feel an obligation to protect the planet....

...but, outside of the forum, they're involved in Stewardship Movements?

They're leading a double life in secret?

Please parse my statement more carefully. There are many, many good Christians on this forum who have not and never will take anti-environmental stances. Time for you to do a little more research and make another one of your lists.

Popeye

06-06-2006, 12:55 PM

O Lord, please don't burn us.
Don't grill or toast Your flock.
Don't put us on the barbecue
Or simmer us in stock.
Don't braise or bake or boil us
Or stir-fry us in a wok.
Oh, please don't lightly poach us
Or baste us with hot fat.
Don't fricassee or roast us
Or boil us in a vat,
And please don't stick Thy servants, Lord,
In a Rotissomat.

ljb5

06-06-2006, 12:57 PM

There are many, many good Christians on this forum who have not and never will take anti-environmental stances.

And there are many 'good Christians' who are always anti-environmental.

Clearly, Joe wasn't complaining about the Christian environmentalists -- his post was about the Christian anit-environmentalits.

(You really need to get over your obsession with lists. What's your problem?)

Joe (SoCal)

06-06-2006, 12:59 PM

Oooh Cool Two for one Tuesday

Rick Clark
This message is hidden because Rick Clark is on your ignore list.

Sam F
This message is hidden because Sam F is on your ignore list.

:D

BrianW

06-06-2006, 01:06 PM

I believe there are references to that being recinded in the New Testament Norman. I'm guessing that since Jews don't believe Jesus was the Son of God, that's why they still follow those rules. Likewise, why Christians don't.

I'm not going to look it up though, as I'm not that interested.

ljb5

06-06-2006, 01:13 PM

I'm not going to look it up though, as I'm not that interested.

Not that interested??!

It's the Word of God!!

How can you call yourself a Christian and then pretend not to be interested?

I've never seen anywhere that the laws were rescinded.

I know at least one law that was never rescinded: the prohibition of divorce. That came straight from Jesus's mouth in the New Testament.

When do we get a constitutional amendment banning divorce?

Meerkat

06-06-2006, 01:26 PM

Selectively ignoring scripture doesn't exactly build credibility.
Why not try taking scripture seriously, even when it contradicts your ideological position?Hmmm... fundamentalist "ministers" do it allll the time! No bets on the rest either.

Well, for anyone that is interested (not that it will make any difference in this conversation)...

Romans 7:6 (English Standard Version)

But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit.

BrianW

06-06-2006, 01:36 PM

Not that interested??!

It's the Word of God!!

How can you call yourself a Christian and then pretend not to be interested?
ljb5,

I'm not interested in looking up something that Norman can very well do himself.

I'm not interested in playing the game where Norman comes up with stuff, and I try and disprove it.

I'm not interested in what you think about the Bible, because it's obvious you don't believe in it.

ljb5

06-06-2006, 01:38 PM

I'm not interested in what you think about the Bible, because it's obvious you don't believe in it.

It's starting to look like you don't believe in it either --- well, only certain parts. :rolleyes:

Sam F

06-06-2006, 01:39 PM

And who, might I ask, is the arbiter of the correct interpretation of Scripture?

Who said anything about being The Arbiter?
Ignoring something isn't even close to interpretation, you know!

Popeye

06-06-2006, 01:41 PM

where's the swami from Bangor when you need him

BrianW

06-06-2006, 01:42 PM

It's starting to look like you don't believe in it either --- well, only certain parts. :rolleyes:

There ya go again... throw out an accusation, and expect the other party to prove it wrong. It's your favorite trick and one that you've become famous for here at the WBF.

If you wonder why even some democrats find you offensive, you need search no further.

BrianW

06-06-2006, 01:46 PM

I don't think so Norman. My Preacher, Pastors, whatever, have always said a man should read the Word, pray about it, think about it, and read it some more. Eventually the true meaning will reveal itself.

It's about you praying to God, and Him responding through the Word. If your looking for a Savior in the form of a man, your about 2000 years too late. ;)

ljb5

06-06-2006, 01:47 PM

Brian, have you given away all of your possessions, as Christ commands in Matthew 19:21?

How can you ignore this (explicit) command -- yet expect others to obey his (not exactly explicit) prohibtion of gay marriage?

Your problem is that you don't obey the bible -- you use it. If it tells you to do something that you want to do, you obey. If it tells you to do something you don't want to do, you ignore it.

At least I'm honest when I say I don't follow the bible. You follow yourself and point to the bible when it's convenient.

If you find something you like in the Old Testament, you tell us to obey. If you find something you don't like, you tell us it's been revoked. It's not about the Bible at all -- it's about you and your opinions and you bend the bible to fit.

Popeye

06-06-2006, 01:58 PM

:rolleyes:literal or parable

not sure anyone 'moved a mountain' .. literally

ljb5

06-06-2006, 02:12 PM

Surely we both can't be right.... can we?

Perhaps we can -- and therein lies the solution to our problem!

Different answers for different people.

Imagine for a second that Brian prayed to God and was told to marry Mrs. W....

Now imagine that I prayed and was told to marry my wife...

And you, Norman, prayed and were told to marry Mrs. Bernstein....

Are we all wrong? Could God's instructions to Brian also be meant for me? Of course not!

Could any of us tell the others that the instructions we received were wrong? Could you tell Brian that he's married the wrong woman because you were told different?

What if God told a gay man to marry his boyfriend? Who here could tell him otherwise?

Meerkat

06-06-2006, 02:14 PM

Where is it written that man should be the instrument of god's will (assuming that god willed it in the first place!)?

Tar Devil

06-06-2006, 02:27 PM

Could any of us tell the others that the instructions we received were wrong?

Which is exactly what Romans 7:6 says as I posted earlier. Of course being invisible, as I am, none of you saw that...

Meerkat

06-06-2006, 02:29 PM

Don't feel bad: I'm mostly invisible these days too. ;)

ljb5

06-06-2006, 02:36 PM

Which is exactly what Romans 7:6 says as I posted earlier. Of course being invisible, as I am, none of you saw that...

We're not talking anymore about Old Testament / New Testament laws and which over-ride which.

I was talking about specific interpretations for each person. Brian said he gets to decide for himself which teachings to follow and which to ignore.... I just thought it would be nice if everyone had that freedom.

God told me to marry Mrs. B. He told Brian to marry Mrs. W..... I'd never tell Brian that he received the wrong instructions -- nor would he think that everyone is supposed to marry Mrs. W...

BrianW

06-06-2006, 02:43 PM

Brian, have you given away all of your possessions, as Christ commands in Matthew 19:21?

How can you ignore this (explicit) command -- yet expect others to obey his (not exactly explicit) prohibtion of gay marriage?

17 (http://bible.cc/matthew/19-17.htm) He said to him, " Why do you call me good? No one is good but one, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments."

20 (http://bible.cc/matthew/19-20.htm) The young man said to him, "All these things I have observed from my youth. What do I still lack?"

21 (http://bible.cc/matthew/19-21.htm) Jesus said to him, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me."

Jesus said... "If you want to be perfect"

It wasn't a mandate, rule, or law. He didn't 'command' that we give away all our riches. Please get your facts straight when making such claims.

Memphis Mike

06-06-2006, 02:48 PM

Where is it written that man should be the instrument of god's will (assuming that god willed it in the first place!)?

I know where it's written for me. It's something I at least try to accept and practice. Notice I said "try."

How's the world doing under the direction of "man's will?"

Tar Devil

06-06-2006, 02:52 PM

I was talking about specific interpretations for each person.

Really? That's exactly what I thought you were talking about, and it's exactly what that scripture addresses. The scripture didn't say a word about any "New Testiment" laws. It merely addresses the issue you raised.

I saw it, although the wording was far from definitive, in terms of answering my original question

Can someone point out where in either the latter part of the Old Testament, or the entire New Testament, where these laws, laid down by God, were invalidated?

How definitive does it have to get? Is it only definitive if it supports your position?

BrianW

06-06-2006, 02:52 PM

We're not talking anymore about Old Testament / New Testament laws and which over-ride which.

Actually, 'we' were, your off on some tangent. Here's a quote from Normans post concerning Jewish diet...(#24 of this thread)

Can someone point out where in either the latter part of the Old Testament, or the entire New Testament, where these laws, laid down by God, were invalidated?

BrianW

06-06-2006, 02:54 PM

Hmmmm.... that presents a dilemma. After reading the Word, thinking about it, etc..... what happens when I come up with an alternate explanation, or interpretation? One which differes from the next man's interpretation? Surely we both can't be right.... can we?

I suppose that is why we have different religions worshiping the same God. God gave us free will, and it's been a hard thing to handle, eh? :)

You know, the wrestling match Paul was engaged in was do all Christians have to be Jews too? Jesus lived and died an observant Jew ... but Paul felt called to preach to the Gentiles. And they asked him if they needed to be Jews in order to believe in Jesus.

Paul said no. But in saying so, he didn't invalidate the covenant God had (and has) with Jews. He just noted that through Jesus, the non-Jews among us also have a different covenant to gain access to the same God.

In Acts, we see Peter wrestling with the same question ... remember the dream of the various "unclean" animals which he was told to kill and eat? God was giving Peter the same answer.

But FWIW, the Jewish dietary laws were based on some pretty sound empirical principles. Don't eat pigs or shellfish when there's no refrigeration ... food poisoning isn't your friend.

t.

BrianW

06-06-2006, 02:59 PM

Your problem is that you don't obey the bible -- you use it. If it tells you to do something that you want to do, you obey. If it tells you to do something you don't want to do, you ignore it.

At least I'm honest when I say I don't follow the bible. You follow yourself and point to the bible when it's convenient.

If you find something you like in the Old Testament, you tell us to obey. If you find something you don't like, you tell us it's been revoked. It's not about the Bible at all -- it's about you and your opinions and you bend the bible to fit.
Here's a cut & paste reply, as it's all your worth when it comes to this tactic of yours...

From BrianW to ljb5... :)

There ya go again... throw out an accusation, and expect the other party to prove it wrong. It's your favorite trick and one that you've become famous for here at the WBF.

If you wonder why even some democrats find you offensive, you need search no further.

I need to find a way to keep this quote handy, as it seems to be appropriate any time you start foaming at the mouth.

Backfin

06-06-2006, 03:03 PM

Uh Oh! Joe is starting to make sense. Keep sailing Joe, it's like beauty sleep for the soul!!

KNOCKABOUT

06-06-2006, 03:07 PM

Actually, 'we' were, your off on some tangent. Here's a quote from Normans post concerning Jewish diet...(#24 of this thread)

Actually it was Peter that rescinded dietary laws, not Jesus. And it was done as a fairly transparent marketing ploy during his travels through Turkey, circumcision was dropped during the same period. Frankly put, if Peter had embarked upon his adventure to recruit christians, and had circumcision and dietary prohibitions as barriers to entry, Christianity never would have made it out of the fifth century. Christianity is awash in early compromise, which is a lot of the reason things dont fit very well, not to mention subsequent reformations. But that is another topic alltogether...

Osborne Russell

06-06-2006, 03:12 PM

through Jesus, the non-Jews among us also have a different covenant to gain access to the same God.

One humanity, one God, but two peoples, and two covenants. A can of worms but so very seductively conveeeeenient at certain critical points.

ljb5

06-06-2006, 03:17 PM

Jesus said... "If you want to be perfect"

It wasn't a mandate, rule, or law. He didn't 'command' that we give away all our riches. Please get your facts straight when making such claims.

The young man asked, "What do I still lack?"

Jesus could have said, "You lack nothing. That's good enough. You don't have to do anything more."

Instead, he told him to give away all of his possessions.

Then he says, " a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven," followed by, "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."

He wasn't just giving advice for how to be perfect -- he said that if you don't do it, you don't get in. It's a requirment. It's not optional. It's mandatory. That's a commandment. Sorry if that doesn't go along with your motives.

He also said, very clearly, that divorce is wrong.

Do you support a constitutional amendment to ban divorce?

ljb5

06-06-2006, 03:51 PM

Tar Devil, it appears we have too many parallel conversations...

It's not clear to me that Romans revokes or invalidates the laws of the Old Testament, but if you say so, I'll believe it. If it revokes the dietary laws, logically it must revoke all the laws because there's no restriction in Romans that says which laws are revoked.

The law against homosexuality is in Leviticus, which is Old Testament, so Romans cancels that out.

Therefore, in the New Testament, according to the New Laws, there's nothing to say homosexuality is wrong.

At one point, Jesus makes passing reference to a married man and woman --- but he never says anything to suggest that's the only type of marriage or that any other type of marriage is prohibited. Just because he mentions straight marriage doesn't mean he forbids gay marriage.

Anyway, there are still a couple of big problems:

Jesus never specifically forbids gay marriage -- some people infer this based on an unrelated comment.
Jesus commands against wealth -- some people choose not to obey this one.
Jesus specifically commands against divorce -- some people choose to ignore this.

And the big one: The bible is not a legal authority so it really doesn't matter what it says.

Sam F

06-06-2006, 04:04 PM

It was an innocent question, SamF.
It was an innocent point too Norm. That point was (as I thought obvious) that Joe was doing the same thing he accused the Evangelicals of doing. There isn't even any controversy possible about it - just read his post.
"I find it odd" that members of the Pack regularly do that - accuse others of what they themselves do - often in the same post!
Pretty darn odd.

Others pointed out what appear to be contradictions in Scripture... or perhaps they're not contradictions at all, except that people who are not extraordinarily well versed in scripture might not see the resolution of what looks like conflicts within it...

You may be a little behind the times on that one. IIRC, at least one Jewish scholar is recorded as not interpreting scripture literally as far back as 200 BC. So these so-called contradictions are only a problem for modern Fundamentalists. Not being one, it's not my problem.

ljb5

06-06-2006, 04:20 PM

You may be a little behind the times on that one. IIRC, at least one Jewish scholar is recorded as not interpreting scripture literally as far back as 200 BC.

The whole problem is that sometimes people take it literally and sometimes they don't.

Tar Devil

06-06-2006, 04:28 PM

It's not clear to me that Romans revokes or invalidates the laws of the Old Testament, but if you say so, I'll believe it.

The problem, ljb5, occurs on both sides of the arguement. You infer that Christians are selective about which scriptures/commandments we keep, and you take a scripture out of context (the rich man) to make your point. Both are wrong.

(This is not intended to be a Sunday School lesson, nor am I trying to sell my beliefs to anyone. Just clearifying my beliefs as a Christain)...

Christianity is, for me, a comprehensive attempt to live as I feel my Lord expects me. It means that I read not only as much of the bible as I can, but read it often. It means not taking snapshots of scripture to argue an issue, but let the whole thing be a guide. It means, also, using some common sense after all this reading/meditating in the decisions I make and how I live - or in making judgements about others. In many instances I follow my convictions, though they sometimes seem contrary to conventional Christian doctrine.

I live very close to gay/lesbian issues on several fronts. Very close. I have learned (not "decided," and there's a big difference) that they are not living a life they choose, but one they were handed. I know for a fact they would never have chosen a life so full of controversy, animosity and hate.

I support their desire and their right to share their life with someone - whether that's called "marriage" or "union" is a debate for someone else. I have "decided" that judging them is not my call, but it IS my call to demonstrate a Christ-like love and compassion for them - as I would anyone, just as Jesus did for the woman at the well, or the woman being stoned for adultry by those "upholding the law."

I just believe that by His words and by His actions, Jesus intended for us to be tolerant, forgiving, understanding, and loving in how we deal with life. It's not a bad policy, even if you eschew Christianity.

Later,

Phil

BrianW

06-06-2006, 04:49 PM

He wasn't just giving advice for how to be perfect -- he said that if you don't do it, you don't get in. It's a requirment. It's not optional. It's mandatory. That's a commandment. Sorry if that doesn't go along with your motives.

I don't have a motive here ljb, this is your thread. In any case, your wrong.

17 (http://bible.cc/matthew/19-17.htm) He said to him, " Why do you call me good? No one is good but one, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments."

Those are Commandments as written in the in other parts of the Bible. Giving away all your riches in order to be saved is not a commandment.

I don't believe Jesus expects anyone to be perfect, after all it's says that in the verse 17 "No one is good but one, that is, God".

What Jesus was telling that young man, is that if even after following all the commandments, you still find wealth seperating you from God, then give that wealth away.

Aside from all that, here's the difference between you and me....

I'm willing to accept you have a different view. It doesn't matter to me what you think about the Bible. However you a obsessed with the matter. You mention it constantly in your post to others, about how Christians must be wrong, and your so right. It makes me wonder what's driving your actions here. Then I realized...

Your planning on getting divorced and marrying a man!!!! :D

ljb5

06-06-2006, 05:01 PM

It means not taking snapshots of scripture to argue an issue, but let the whole thing be a guide.

That sounds like a nice policy. The problem is that lot's of people just take "snapshots."

Check out the guy in the photo above....

There are more than 31,000 verses in the bible and that guy picks three out of context and bases his position on that.

Sometimes the bible is very specific -- sometimes it is very vague. Sometime Christians tell us to read the literal words --- sometimes they tell us to ignore them.

Check out Brian's latest post. There's a passage that says that a rich man can't get into heaven. That's a plain and clear and unequivocal as anything could be. It's right there in black and white.

Brian carefully edits around that part and presents the part he likes.

That's fine if he wants to set a standard for himself and live up to that standard. He says he doesn't want to be 'perfect' -- just good enough to get into heaven. That's fine by me. That's his business, not mine. He gets to set his standard for himself.

The problem is that some people want to set the standard for others. They feel empowered to tell others what they can't do. They want a constitutional amendment telling other people that they can't do something because Jesus says so --- but ignore the other things Jesus said because that's a personal matter.

That's hypocisy. If you're going to make other people live up to a biblical standard you better be willing to do it yourself.

Memphis Mike

06-06-2006, 05:54 PM

The problem, ljb5, occurs on both sides of the arguement. You infer that Christians are selective about which scriptures/commandments we keep, and you take a scripture out of context (the rich man) to make your point. Both are wrong.

(This is not intended to be a Sunday School lesson, nor am I trying to sell my beliefs to anyone. Just clearifying my beliefs as a Christain)...

Christianity is, for me, a comprehensive attempt to live as I feel my Lord expects me. It means that I read not only as much of the bible as I can, but read it often. It means not taking snapshots of scripture to argue an issue, but let the whole thing be a guide. It means, also, using some common sense after all this reading/meditating in the decisions I make and how I live - or in making judgements about others. In many instances I follow my convictions, though they sometimes seem contrary to conventional Christian doctrine.

I live very close to gay/lesbian issues on several fronts. Very close. I have learned (not "decided," and there's a big difference) that they are not living a life they choose, but one they were handed. I know for a fact they would never have chosen a life so full of controversy, animosity and hate.

I support their desire and their right to share their life with someone - whether that's called "marriage" or "union" is a debate for someone else. I have "decided" that judging them is not my call, but it IS my call to demonstrate a Christ-like love and compassion for them - as I would anyone, just as Jesus did for the woman at the well, or the woman being stoned for adultry by those "upholding the law."

I just believe that by His words and by His actions, Jesus intended for us to be tolerant, forgiving, understanding, and loving in how we deal with life. It's not a bad policy, even if you eschew Christianity.

Later,

Phil

I'm honored to have you as a friend of mine, Phil.:)

Sam F

06-06-2006, 06:00 PM

This guy is interpreting it literally:
<removed picture asserting the marriage was between one man and one woman>
The whole problem is that sometimes people take it literally and sometimes they don't.

Jesus never specifically forbids gay marriage -- some people infer this based on an unrelated comment.

I find this odd. How is can both those statements be true?

ljb5

06-06-2006, 06:27 PM

I find this odd. How is can both those statements be true?

You tell me --- take it up with the guy holding the sign. :rolleyes:

Jesus never says anything about gay marriage, so a literal reading of the bible doesn't forbid it.

Yet at one point, Jesus makes passing references to a married man and woman, so an overly-literal protester fixates on those three verses and bases his position on that.

There's only one reason why that guy would be holding that sign -- because he thinks it supports his position. He wouldn't be holding it if he thought those verses were irrelevant and he wouldn't be holding it if he thought they contradicted him.

That guy thinks that those three verses hold the basis for a policy about gay marriage. Three verses out of more than 31,000 and that guy thinks he's found the key. This guys isn't reading the bible, he's parsing it, distilling it, picking it apart with tweezers and extracting that which suits him. That's literalism.

ljb5

06-06-2006, 06:31 PM

Your planning on getting divorced and marrying a man!!!! :D

Har, har, har... very funny...

The simple truth, Brian, is that I am able to think about other people besides myself.

Gay marriage wouldn't help or hurt me at all. Yet I have friends, neighbors and fellow citizens I've never met who might appreciate a taste of the happiness I enjoy.

I don't begrudge them and I see no reason to deny them.

Why would you withhold this simple pleasure from them? What would it cost you? How would it affect you?

Isn't it nicer to have a government that says, "Yes, you may" rather than "No, you may not" -- especially when it doesn't cost you anything?

George Jung

06-06-2006, 06:57 PM

I'm surprised some of our scholars, better versed than I, haven't commented on the 'camel passing through the eye of a needle' passage. It's my understanding there are a few interpretations of this passage. It's not what some here have posted, btw.
One has it that a passage (through a wall or shed?) was called 'the eye of the needle', and necessitated the animal actually drop to it's 'knees' to acoomplish passage; ie, a rich man finds it difficult to drop to his knees, or prostrate himself; an act of submission, so to speak.

Lil' has latched onto this 'non-command', to give all ones wealth away, simply as a device to continue his argument. He doesn't have much of one; when youve brought a slingshot to a gunfight, you pick up what's handy, and do the best you can. I especially like:

"Your planning on getting divorced and marrying a man!!!! :D "

Well. All I can say is, 'You go, girl!

On a more serious note - well put, Phil.
__________________

WX

06-06-2006, 06:57 PM

Christianity, by it's very nature is intolerant...does it not say somewhere in the bible something about there being but one God and all others are but false idols.
However I commend any Christian, moslem, Jew, Hindu or Jane (insert religion of choice) for believing it is the duty of mankind to care for the Earth.
In the long run the Earth will abide...mankind without being responsible will not.

Sam F

06-06-2006, 07:29 PM

You tell me --- take it up with the guy holding the sign.

Jesus never says anything about gay marriage, so a literal reading of the bible doesn't forbid it.

Yet at one point, Jesus makes passing references to a married man and woman, so an overly-literal protester fixates on those three verses and bases his position on that. .

For starters there is nothing of a “passing reference” about Matthew 19
In verse 3 the interrogation starts with:

Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?" (emphasis added to make it painfully obvious what is going on)
In response to this test given Him by one of a brood of vipers, Jesus said:

4. And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE,
5.and said, `FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'

OK – you’re being tested by your enemies who have made a career of trying to trip you up and you make a “passing reference”? I don’t think so!
Jesus was speaking carefully. If he’d meant what you assert, he'd have said: For this reason a man shall leave his father and be joined to another man”.

That guy thinks that those three verses hold the basis for a policy about gay marriage. Three verses out of more than 31,000 and that guy thinks he's found the key. That's literalism.

Sorry but it's not literalism and you just proved it by saying: “Jesus never says anything about gay marriage, so a literal reading of the bible doesn't forbid it.”

The sign’s message is in fact a reasonable interpretation of what Jesus said about men and women marrying each other.
There is no plausible and reasonable interpretation that would indicate that Jesus ever would have approved of homosexual marriage. Reasonable interpretation is not literalism for literalism requires no interpretation.
Literal is “upholding the exact or primary meaning of a word or words. [or a] Word for word; verbatim: a literal translation.”
What you in fact have done ljb5 is get wrapped up in your own propaganda. “Literalism” is an epithet to be used to stereotype Christians. Use it if you must but use it correctly. In this instance you have not done so.

ljb5

06-06-2006, 07:31 PM

I'm surprised some of our scholars, better versed than I, haven't commented on the 'camel passing through the eye of a needle' passage. It's my understanding there are a few interpretations of this passage. It's not what some here have posted, btw.
One has it that a passage (through a wall or shed?) was called 'the eye of the needle', and necessitated the animal actually drop to it's 'knees' to acoomplish passage; ie, a rich man finds it difficult to drop to his knees, or prostrate himself; an act of submission, so to speak.

The 'gate' or 'passageway' hypothesis has been around for a long time, but there has never been any historical evidence of such a gate.

Serious biblical scholars don't believe in this interpretation and the rest of Jesus's teachings don't support it.

Look at the passages that come before it:

...sell that thou hast, and give to the poor...
...That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven....

And then look at the disciples' reaction. They are amazed, they worry that nobody can be saved and then Peter says the have forsaken all.

It also begs the question of why the young man went away sorrowful. If Jesus had just told him that he need only get down on his knees, he'd be happy.

The 'gate' theory is a nice story they tell to kids in Sunday school so that they won't ask too many questions, but it has no historical basis and it doesn't make sense in context with the rest of the chapter.

The Jerome Biblical Commentary is perhaps the most common reference work, written by Catholic scholars. It says, "the figure of the camel and the eye of the needle means exactly what is said; it does not refer to a cable or a small gate of Jerusalem.

Nicholas Carey

06-06-2006, 07:32 PM

I'm surprised some of our scholars, better versed than I, haven't commented on the 'camel passing through the eye of a needle' passage...One has it that a passage (through a wall or shed?) was called 'the eye of the needle', and necessitated the animal actually drop to it's 'knees' to acoomplish passage; ie, a rich man finds it difficult to drop to his knees, or prostrate himself; an act of submission, so to speak.When the going gets tough, the tough refer to The Straight Dope (http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mrichman.html):

Dear Straight Dope:

Recently I was having a "discussion" with a Southern Baptist friend of mine and I asked him how he could reconcile his well-to-do lifestyle with the verse in the Bible in which Jesus says, "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God." His reply almost floored me. He said that The Eye of the Needle was a gate leading into Jeruselem which was notorious for being almost impossible to get a camel through. Please help me clear up this malarky! I would have posted on the message board, but I don't understand that stuff (am I stupid?). So I'm just praying that somehow this will get through to you. Thanks, NatSDSTAFF CKDextHavn and SDSTAFF Diannecar reply:

The answer requires some history (from CK), some theology (from Diannecar), and an assist on both from a Ph.D.-in-Divinity friend of CK's:

First, the text itself. According to Matthew, a certain rich young guy comes to Jesus and asks what one thing he has to do to have eternal life. Jesus says it's fairly simple: keep the commandments. The young man asks which particular commandments and Jesus says the ones about not murdering, stealing, lying, or committing adultery; honoring your mother and father and loving your neighbor as much as you love yourself --those commandments. The kid persists and says that he has *always* done those things, even when he was a child; there must be something else he needs to do. Jesus says, "Okay, I'll tell you what: if you want to be perfect, go sell what you have, give the proceeds to the poor and you come follow me." This is thought to be a suggestion that the rich young man was kidding himself if he thought he had kept the law perfectly. Odds are, like most of us, he loved himself a little bit better than he loved his neighbor.

ANYway, the kid hears that and goes away sadly "for he had great possessions." (Matthew 19:22) Then Jesus utters the famous line (Matthew 19:24) about how hard it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.

Next, the history and archaeology. The notion your Baptist friend has picked up apparently comes from a single ninth-century commentary which asserts that in first-century Jerusalem there was a gate called the Needle's Eye which a camel could only get through on its knees. (Sort of like Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade: "only the penitent man will pass...") A cute allegory, but there's no archaeological or historical evidence for the existence of such a gate.

There's a good brief discussion in the article on "kamelos" in Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 3, pp. 592-594 (one of the standard works on New Testament language.) TDNT, and other commentators with an interest in history, point out that there are several parallels in later rabbinic language about the impossibility of getting an elephant through the eye of a needle: it's a way of describing something which is so impossible that it's grotesque.

So the "Gate of the Needle's Eye" notion has no firm historical basis. It looks like a way of getting around the plain (but inconvenient) meaning of the text.

Setting the text in the whole New Testament context, wealth is consistently presented as a *problem*. I suspect the modern notion owes less to the Bible than to the Puritan theory that success in economic life was a sign of God's blessing.

Now, the theology. The message was viewed by the disciples as pretty bleak. In 19:25 -- just after Jesus uses the comparison -- the disciples respond "Then who can be saved?" "By human power, it is impossible," says Jesus. Then adds hope: "With God, *anything* is possible." Even the salvation of the rich. As a miracle.

On the other hand, it would be equally dangerous to argue "but I'm poor, so I'm okay." The words of Jesus are not designed to give *anybody* a false sense of security. My friend the pastor adds, "Apart from the mercy of God, we're all done for."

Sam, my point is that Jesus was asked about divorce -- not about gay marriage.

I doubt the concept of gay marriage existed at the time. Jesus's response was about marriage and divorce, not about heterosexuality and homosexuality -- so that protester is taking it out of context.

The fact that Jesus mentions heterosexual marrige does not necessarily mean that he opposes homosexual marriage.

The fact that he lived in Isreal doesn't mean that he declared war on Peru.

The fact that he had a friend named Paul doesn't mean he hated a man named Robert.

The fact that he mentioned straights doesn't mean he hated gays.

The fact that Jesus said a man should leave his father and mother shouldn't be taken to imply that a man can't be raised by his grandparents or by a step-father.

Condoning one possibility is not a condemnation of all other possibilities.

Tar Devil

06-06-2006, 07:41 PM

Memphis Mike,

Likewise to you, my friend!

BrianW

06-06-2006, 07:48 PM

That sounds like a nice policy. The problem is that lot's of people just take "snapshots."

Mostly you do that, as in your theory that Jesus said no rich man can get into Heaven.

Check out Brian's latest post. There's a passage that says that a rich man can't get into heaven. That's a plain and clear and unequivocal as anything could be. It's right there in black and white.

Brian carefully edits around that part and presents the part he likes.

Really, well let's look at that a bit closer. Here's the verses your talking about...

23 (http://kjv.biblebrowser.com/matthew/19-23.htm) Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.

24 (http://kjv.biblebrowser.com/matthew/19-24.htm) And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

25 (http://kjv.biblebrowser.com/matthew/19-25.htm) When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?

26 (http://kjv.biblebrowser.com/matthew/19-26.htm) But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

Note the first obvious error you made... Jesus said it would be hard for a rich man to enter Heaven. You claim a rich man CAN'T get into Heaven.

I could stop there, because your so wrong it's obvious the rest of tirad is based on lies. But I'll continue, since your being such an ass.

The disciples were obvously troubled by this news, and asked Jesus about it, and to quote the verse above, Jesus said... With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.

So ya see there 'snapshot ljb' if you read more, you'll see that Jesus explains how it's possible. Your the one guilty of 'careful editting' and playing on words.

Again, your 'black and white version...

There's a passage that says that a rich man can't get into heaven. That's a plain and clear and unequivocal as anything could be.

The true reality the rest of the world sees...

Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.

That's 'hardly' as in tough, but not in anyway impossible.

New Living Translation Version...

23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is very hard for a rich person to get into the Kingdom of Heaven.

New King James Version...

23 Then Jesus said to His disciples, “Assuredly, I say to you that it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.

I guess you won't be adding this to your sacred 'I was right' list. :)

ljb5

06-06-2006, 07:58 PM

It's so nice of them to come out with those new translations. Just round off sharp corners, take away the unpleasant parts and force it to fit. :rolleyes:

Who would have thought that King James might want a bible a little more tolerant of the rich man? :rolleyes: Shocking!

Check out the originals.

Jesus said it ain't going to happen. He didn't tell the young man to get on his knees -- He told him to give away all his possessions.

Gauge the young man's reaction.

Gauge the disciples' reaction.

Once you realize there's no historical, or archealogical evidence that "the eye of the needle" was a gate (or that camels walk on their knees), you realize that what he said was that it's impossible. It's a b.s. story they made up to make the message more palatable for the masses. It's awfully hard to spread a relgion that asks you to sell all your possessions --- much better to soften the message.

Seasoned Warrior

06-06-2006, 07:58 PM

whether one takes a biblical, spiritual or simply a logical approach environmentalism makes sense but gay marriage does not. Frankly I don't care what adults do privately but redefining the English language is a purely political move.

BrianW

06-06-2006, 08:09 PM

It's so nice of them to come out with those new translations. Just round off sharp corners, take away the unpleasant parts and force it to fit. :rolleyes:

Who would have thought that King James might want a bible a little more tolerant of the rich man? :rolleyes: Shocking!

Check out the originals.

Jesus said it ain't going to happen. He didn't tell the young man to get on his knees -- He told him to give away all his possessions.

Gauge the young man's reaction.

Gauge the disciples' reaction.

Once you realize there's no historical, or archealogical evidence that "the eye of the needle" has a gate (or that camels walk on their knees), you realize that what he said was that it's impossible.

Your incredible. Since you like the dictionary, check out the defintion of 'hardly'...

It's not a matter of translations, they all say the same thing. You simply refuse to accept it.

As far as the man, and the disciples, I image they were very happy when He told them that all things are possible with God.

Remember that part there, Mr Snapshot?

Backfin

06-06-2006, 08:12 PM

So, there is an outside chance that a camel COULD pass through the eye of a needle.:eek:

ljb5

06-06-2006, 08:22 PM

As far as the man, and the disciples, I image they were very happy when He told them that all things are possible with God.

...after they gave away all of their possessions.

And you're still ignoring the fact that camels don't pass through the eye of the needle.

ljb5

06-06-2006, 08:28 PM

Brian, you should check out Mark 10.

It's the retelling of the same scene as Matthew 19 -- but not quite the same...

This time, the young man doesn't ask what he lacks --- but Jesus tells him

20 He said to him, "Teacher, I have observed all these things from my youth."

21 Jesus looking at him loved him, and said to him, "One thing you lack. Go, sell whatever you have, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me, taking up the cross.

Very interesting --- Jesus says he is lacking and gives him explicit instructions.

Same thing in Luke 18:22:

When Jesus heard these things, he said to him, "You still lack one thing. Sell all that you have, and distribute it to the poor. You will have treasure in heaven. Come, follow me."

That's a direct order. Not optional. Mandatory.

BrianW

06-06-2006, 08:33 PM

...after they gave away all of their possessions.

Yawn... not a commandment.

And you're still ignoring the fact that camels don't pass through the eye of the needle.

It was an expression, an anolgy, Jesus loved to use parables and such to make a point.

Besides, His answer to your question was that through God, all things are possible. All things ljb5, including rich people getting into Heaven.

Your grasping at straws now. Keep it up, it's fun to watch... and from a person who doesn't even believe... :rolleyes:

BrianW

06-06-2006, 08:35 PM

Brian, you should check out Mark 10.

It's the retelling of the same scene as Matthew 19 -- but not quite the same...

This time, the young man doesn't ask what he lacks --- but Jesus tells him

Very interesting --- Jesus says he is lacking and gives him explicit instructions.

Same thing in Luke 18:22:

That's a direct order. Not optional. Mandatory.

Oh good grief, it never ends with you. Now I suppose someone will need to go and double check your references again. After all, you've proven to be unreliable before, like just today. :mad:

BrianW

06-06-2006, 08:46 PM

I looked'em up, and they all say the same thing if you read all the verses in the passage. Jesus said 'hardly' not impossible, and again that 'All things are possible with God.'

Nothing changed, but you keep on trying.

ljb5

06-06-2006, 08:53 PM

Yet his followers gave away their possession and those who didn't went away unhappy.

He told the kid that he lacked something -- even though he followed all the commandments -- and he told him what to do about it.

ljb5

06-06-2006, 09:01 PM

But you still haven't answered my question:

Do you support a constitutional amendment banning divorce in all cases except adultery?

Jesus was very clear about that.

Peter Malcolm Jardine

06-06-2006, 09:20 PM

Wow, Bruin the biblical and enviromental wizard. The dream never stops. LMAO

Hey Bruin, think the bible might have been translated a few times? ROTFLMAO....

You have to stop soon... my rib cage is hurting from the laughter.

ljb5

06-06-2006, 09:27 PM

Brian, I'm going to bed in a couple of minutes, but here's something to think about...

On the one hand, Jesus suggests very clearly that you give away all of your possession. (Maybe not commands, but definitely suggests.)

...on the other hand, Jesus says nothing at all about gay marriage. He makes passing reference to heterosexual marriage and some people use his tacit approval of straight marriage as evidence of his firm disapproval of gay marriage.

In some cases, people are willing to read between the lines and extrapolate what he said.

In other cases, they read around the lines and avoid taking his advice.

BrianW

06-06-2006, 09:58 PM

Hey Bruin, think the bible might have been translated a few times? ROTFLMAO....

That's a stupid question, given the examples of different translations already provided in this thread. They all match too.

You have to stop soon... my rib cage is hurting from the laughter.

I know! But ljb5 keeps saying the craziest things, it hard to stop! :)

BrianW

06-06-2006, 10:01 PM

But you still haven't answered my question:

Do you support a constitutional amendment banning divorce in all cases except adultery?

Is there one on the table?

Or is this something you think you've found the answer to, and now wish to draw someone into a debate over?

Paul Girouard

06-06-2006, 10:24 PM

Hey Bruin, think the bible might have been translated a few times?

Peter you might do a little research on bible translations , once you , ah , compose yourself :rolleyes:

Sam, my point is that Jesus was asked about divorce -- not about gay marriage.

I doubt the concept of gay marriage existed at the time.

Bingo. No homosexual marriage. Period.

Jesus's response was about marriage and divorce, not about heterosexuality and homosexuality -- so that protester is taking it out of context.

Speaking of taking things out of context... let's look at that context again:
"4. And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE,
5.and said, `FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH' "
(emphasis added to make it excruciatingly obvious)
So what more context do you need there? Man is created in both male and female varieties and for this reason they are to be joined as man and wife.
Sorry ljb5 but the context doesn't help you one bit. Its meaning is clear and unambiguous and that meaning doesn't allow room for same-sex anything.

The fact that Jesus mentions heterosexual marrige does not necessarily mean that he opposes homosexual marriage… Condoning one possibility is not a condemnation of all other possibilities.

You can't know that. Why? Because you don’t know Jesus. How about the witness of someone who did?
From 2nd Peter:
For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment;
5. and did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly;
6. and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter;
7. and if He rescued righteous Lot, oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men
8. (for by what he saw and heard that righteous man, while living among them, felt his righteous soul tormented day after day by their lawless deeds),
9. then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment,…

That’s from a fellow who spent many hours in close contact with Jesus. Do you think he got it wrong to illustrate God’s wrath on those who lived “ungodly lives” in Sodom? Do you think he didn’t accurately reflect Jesus’ views on this matter? If he got it wrong do you think the rest of the apostles didn’t notice?

How about Jude, a bond-servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James?

7. just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.
8.Yet in the same way these men, also by dreaming, defile the flesh, and reject authority, and revile angelic majesties.

That’s the context of the New Testament ljb5 and there’s no amount of pretending going to make it go away. There is no reasonable or plausible way to believe that Jesus would have approved of homosexual “marriage” – It’s a Zero.

Peter Malcolm Jardine

06-06-2006, 10:44 PM

Well, that's settled. Now on to reality. Gay marriage is here, and it's not going away. Thank yew, thank yew very much.

BrianW

06-06-2006, 10:50 PM

I'd have given the chance of seeing gay marriage in Canada, about the same odds as seeing a camel pass thru the eye of a needle! :D

Peter Malcolm Jardine

06-06-2006, 10:57 PM

We're a little more progressive up here.

Meerkat

06-06-2006, 11:26 PM

From 2nd Peter:

...Wherin nothing about homosexuality is mentioned... That’s from a fellow who spent many hours in close contact with Jesus.
Jesus would have been 1st Peter in the "close contact?" :D :D :D

There is no reasonable or plausible way to believe that Jesus would have approved of homosexual “marriage” – It’s a Zero.No, while it may not be possible for YOU to believe that Jesus would have approved of gay marriage, many people seem to have found a more encompassing, all-loving Christ than you're able to. Why, he probably even loves you! :eek:

Nicholas Carey

06-07-2006, 12:37 AM

So, there is an outside chance that a camel COULD pass through the eye of a needle.:eek:Well, not really, since 'camel' is likely a mistranslation of the original which more likely meant 'cable' (cables are laid up like rope in a rope walk, but instead of strands of threads, a cable is laid up of ropes). The cable/needle analogy is more likely than camel/needle and works better from a literary point of view, given the obvious impossiblity of threading a needle (intended for single thread) with a cable composed of multipe ropes composed of multiple strands composed of multiple threads.

Which brings us back, of course, to Andrew Carnegie's bit on "he who dies rich, dies disgraced."

skuthorp

06-07-2006, 03:19 AM

All this verbatim record of Jesus's words and conversations, contemporary? real time? unedited? confirmed dates? provenance? You are all presuming a great deal.
I have no doubt that all this stuff is in the book, but when was it actually written down and by whom. It would never stand in any court by any rule of evidence. Even heresay is unprovable, fiction more likely.
Interesting thread though, thanks

ian scott

06-07-2006, 04:29 AM

thank you popeye- the more you say- the more i listen :)

WX

06-07-2006, 04:30 AM

ljb5, I like that, nicely put.

Joe (SoCal)

06-07-2006, 05:40 AM

Thank you Brian
Thank you Sam F although I can only read some of what you posted when you are quoted by others because you are on my ignore list ;)

But anyway thank you all for turning this thread in to exactly what I said I found odd. We now have a typical 3 page thread complete with massive bible quotes on GAY MARRIAGE The subject of how God Expects Humans to be His Stewards with Nature as indicated in biblical passages was dropped by page one.

But I bet if I posted another global warming thread everyone would start quoting scientific journals not the bible.